About your Search

20120930
20121008
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
. you are jack welch. jack, you've got to take this opportunity while everybody is listening to you to actually say, yes, anderson, i'm taking that tweet back. i'm going to send a new tweet to say i was exaggerating. there are problems bls should look into but to throw out an accusation that's like asking the government how often do you beat your wife. >> i should have had a question mark at the back of it, ali, let's face it, but the facts, are ali, no matter how you want to look at this, we had 25 economists polled before this number came out. the average number they expected was about 115,000. not one of them -- >> yes. >> had a number below 1.1. >> labor secretary hilda so li s shot back at the critics telling cnn it was insulting for people to suggest her department was manipulating numbers for the president's benefit. >>> the obama and romney campaigns are ratcheting up the rhetoric in the wake of the jobs report. our political editor paul steinhauser hats candidate's comments. one set of numbers, two sets of eyes. >> yeah, very, very different responses to the friday jobs rep
fell to below 8%? also jack welch, the former ge guy. >> yep. >> he's tweeting this morning and saying, unbelievable jobs numbers. these chicago guys will do anything. can't debate, so change numbers. i mean -- so is it possible the labor department is lying or has changed these numbers in some way? >> look, these numbers are often revised. usually when you have a vibrant growing jobs market a revision of 86,000 doesn't make any difference at all. you have much more jobs being created. we don't have that right now. in terms of why the two numbers are different, there are two different surveys the government does. hou household survey where they ask people wheer they're employed and a company survey where they ask companies how many people are employed. those are two different numbers. so that's why you have the number of jobs created or lost and the jobless rate. that's the technical data gathering reason. as for -- look, you'll hear conservatives say either they don't trust these numbers or they're going to say, look, 114,000 is the important number to look at here. that's not good en
questioned the accuracy of the data. on twitter, former general electric c.e.o. jack welch suggested the obama administration manipulated the numbers. but on cnbc, labor secretary hilda solis called that claim "ludicrous" and defended the bureau of labor statistics. >> you know, i'm insulted when i hear that,ecause we have a very professional civil service organization where you have top, top economists that work at the b.l.s. >> brown: the employment numbers landed as the campaigns put up new ads attacking each other on jobs and taxes. >> president obama says he's creating jobs. but he's really creating debt. the facts are clear. obama's four deficits are the four largest in u.s. history. he's adding almost as much debt as all 43 previous presidents combined. and over 30 cents of every dollar obama spends is borrowed, much of it from countries like china. he's not just wasting money; he's borrowing it and then wasting it. we can't afford four more years. >> why won't romney level with us about his tax plan, which gives the wealthy huge new tax breaks? because, according to experts,
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)